2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
559
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

the 'hp contribution' of a tuned induction system is the most valuable kind of hp ......
the electrical kind

anything that cuts compressor work is contributing in this way eg reduced constraint in induction system

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
149
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

henry wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:18 pm
A further thought.

The Cd figures I arrived at seemed low in relation to Prof Limebeers, which were for narrower cars and tyres.

I looked at the effect of wind speed. In September in Singapore the wind speed and direction is fairly stable averaging 6 knots tailwind down straight 1. I used the numbers for Changi airport.

Adding this to my calcs brought the Cd figures to 0.9 low speed and 0.8 high speed, which seem more reasonable. The DRS would be open which would lower them slightly when comparing with the Prof.
Aren't typical wind speed measurements typically taken at a much higher elevation than what an F1 car runs in (maybe something like 10m in elevation). A ~1m max height of an F1 car is probably running in a significant boundary layer and could see quite a bit lower wind speed than that measured at an airport. The interesting geometry around the track in Singapore will also make it quite difficult to get a reliable wind speed data. A big open track like Silverstone would probably be better to use IMO, or perhaps Austria or Spa since the significant elevation changes would provide another data point.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
100
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

This one might be of some interest, in regard to recent posts, its a virtual dyno software app..

http://www.ntproject.com/software_vd1eng.htm
We are standing on the toes of Hobbits. So wear safety boots.

User avatar
bauc
89
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Skopje, Macedonia

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Renault calls for F1 engine freeze in 2019-20

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rena ... 0-1020042/

I think their stance has merit. This would allow Honda to catch up and it would allow all engine manufactures to have 2 years of development of the next gen PU, which can ensure that all manufactures will be able to invest in proper R&D
Формула 1 на Македонски - The first ever Macedonian Formula 1 YouTube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJkjCv ... 6rVRgKASwg

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
9
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Clarity request.

Could posters say what they think is the :
1. Lambda, steady state.
2. Lambda, transition.
3. BSFC.
4. Power of the ICE.
5. NOx emissions. (even just high or low)

63l8qrrfy6
63l8qrrfy6
373
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 12:43 pm
Have posted elsewhere regarding the smoky engines, but no opinions, which might indicate that it is an incorrect idea,but:

They could be running NO oil rings?

advantage is less friction
possible with pressure difference control
seem to be only smoky when idle or after idle which could relate to throttling
Now I can put this idea to rest.
On Sunday morning I was invited by a couple friends to see the Melbourne GP at the Mercedes plant in Brixworth.
In their restaurant there is a display case showing a turbo era piston, finger followers, a compressor and a turbine wheel.

The piston had a conventional spring loaded oil ring. Unfortunately I was not allowed to take pictures (even though most people managed to take a few shots of the car hanging off the wall before being told off by staff).

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

Cold Fussion wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:35 am
henry wrote:
Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:18 pm
A further thought.

The Cd figures I arrived at seemed low in relation to Prof Limebeers, which were for narrower cars and tyres.

I looked at the effect of wind speed. In September in Singapore the wind speed and direction is fairly stable averaging 6 knots tailwind down straight 1. I used the numbers for Changi airport.

Adding this to my calcs brought the Cd figures to 0.9 low speed and 0.8 high speed, which seem more reasonable. The DRS would be open which would lower them slightly when comparing with the Prof.
Aren't typical wind speed measurements typically taken at a much higher elevation than what an F1 car runs in (maybe something like 10m in elevation). A ~1m max height of an F1 car is probably running in a significant boundary layer and could see quite a bit lower wind speed than that measured at an airport. The interesting geometry around the track in Singapore will also make it quite difficult to get a reliable wind speed data. A big open track like Silverstone would probably be better to use IMO, or perhaps Austria or Spa since the significant elevation changes would provide another data point.
Some good points.

I only have vehicle data for Singapore on the start/finish straight. Thanks to @mudflap.

You are right that the windspeed is hard to determine, I have seen an environment presentation which shows the building effect. However the wind speeds in Singapore are low, reasonably constant and the straight is close to the waterway which means the wind is reasonably unconstrained by the dense buildings.

I added in the wind speed to get a feel for the sort of difference it makes.

As I said in an earlier the teams themselves will use wind speed as one of the factors for evaluating their competitors PU performance. In their case they have the data from their own cars, the difference between road speed and air speed giving them wind speed at any point on the track.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

User avatar
godlameroso
502
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:04 pm
Clarity request.

Could posters say what they think is the :
1. Lambda, steady state.
2. Lambda, transition.
3. BSFC.
4. Power of the ICE.
5. NOx emissions. (even just high or low)
Very high, very high flame temps. It's almost like a turbine engine these engines need so much air for cooling, without huge amounts of air dilution the pistons will melt.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
godlameroso
502
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:44 am
johnny comelately wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:04 pm
Clarity request.

Could posters say what they think is the :
1. Lambda, steady state.
2. Lambda, transition.
3. BSFC.
4. Power of the ICE.
5. NOx emissions. (even just high or low)
Very high, very high flame temps. It's almost like a turbine engine these engines need so much air for cooling, without huge amounts of air dilution the pistons will melt.
Lambda is likely anywhere between 1.1-1.5 steady state, depending on engine map. You should know better than anyone what lambda is like in transition state. It's obvious with a smaller volume the flame chamber needs less fuel to have a relatively rich mixture. If I had to guess I'd say it's probably quite conventional .8 .7 in there, although if you're new to the concept you'll likely have to go even richer than that in both transition and steady state to avoid combustion instability. The more fleshed out your concept, and the more precise the process the more you can push things.

Answers little, but it's just my best guess.
Saishū kōnā

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
559
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

if lambda is 1.1 the absolute 'boost' will need to be correspondingly low

ok maybe not exactly correspondingly low
if this 1.1 lambda is at low rpm (off the tuned- induction/exhaust rpm) the absolute 'boost' might not be lower than 3 bar

(when) have 'we' seen 3 bar abs being used ?

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:04 pm
Clarity request.

Could posters say what they think is the :
1. Lambda, steady state.
2. Lambda, transition.
3. BSFC.
4. Power of the ICE.
5. NOx emissions. (even just high or low)
I don’t know the answers to these. I do have a feel for overall PU power (675 kw) from the look I took at the Ferrari Singapore data, it only depends on about 7 or 8 assumptions :) , but I have no idea how much is ICE, how much MGU-H and how much ES. I assumed the PU was in self sustain plus mode, assumption 1.

As a consequence of this uncertainty even though the fuel flow rate is a given BSFC is a mystery.

However on NOx it raises the question for me of how many people in the world know the answer, let alone on this forum.

The emissions combination and levels are not mandated so, in my mind, the only people who will be interested are those directly involved with the combustion processes, the fuel chemists and combustion simulation specialists. I would expect that they might want to know the levels in order to evaluate the chemistry of the combustion. I wonder whether the numbers ever go outside that group? Would Andy Cowell want to know?

A made up analogy. If a gearbox engineer used sound profiles as one of many methods to evaluate the efficiency of a gear tooth profile, would they report that the dB levels were down or up when describing the improvement to their design?
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

User avatar
Big Tea
155
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

bauc wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:11 am
Renault calls for F1 engine freeze in 2019-20

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/rena ... 0-1020042/

I think their stance has merit. This would allow Honda to catch up and it would allow all engine manufactures to have 2 years of development of the next gen PU, which can ensure that all manufactures will be able to invest in proper R&D
I can see their point in not wanting to fight on 2 fronts, that of developing and of designing the new unit, but if there is a single factor that would encourage a new builder in it is having a running start on the old guard, with them in the same boat with testing. Even more so if the new engine is 'simplified' and easier to understand and get up to speed.

Not sure I sympathize with them enough to remove this juicy carrot from others looking in with interest.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

gruntguru
gruntguru
487
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

johnny comelately wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:04 pm
Clarity request.

Could posters say what they think is the :
1. Lambda, steady state.
2. Lambda, transition.
3. BSFC.
4. Power of the ICE.
5. NOx emissions. (even just high or low)
1. 1.2-2.0
2. 1.0-1.6
3. 160 (peak)
4. 850hp (peak)
5. High
je suis charlie

User avatar
henry
324
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

850hp from the ICE?

I assume that’s supercharged not turbocharged. In which case is it really ICE given that the energy to boost the charge is externally sourced? Ditto, especially, bsfc.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
559
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: 2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

Post

I can't see how a substantial variation of lambda (eg 1.2 - 2.0 steady state) is useful
in what way(s) is there not a particular small range of lambda the designer chose as the best for PU to use ?
given fuel rate rules and gears, cylinder cutting and +- K mapping combine to make ICE torque nearly constant

and 2 lambda seems to need 6 bar - is this done ? (or even possible ?)

this highest lambda means the combustion gas temperature (before cooling) is the lowest
the rules demand (in principle) an unconventionally high lambda to reduce fuel energy thrown away by cooling
ie a unconventionally low cooling rate (relative to ICE power) is needed
but a greater cooling rate is needed whenever lambda is lowered except when ICE power is somewhat low
or are people saying qually and/or racing briefly uses unlimited/or max fuel rate ....
and the engine survives lower lambda undercooling for 1 lap ? or 2 ? or 3 ?
or carries throughout the race an oversize cooling system ?

lower lambda running needs more fuel for than running high lambda for the same power
do people think some parts of the lap are best run at inefficient lambda and others best run at efficient lambda ?
to get a better overall race time from the fuel allowance

and the engine has little scope for benefit from having extra fuel thrown into it under transient conditions in a race
it doesn't have a transient signal source and the necessary 3 dimensional map
(which if allowed could anyway work by boost modulation/fixed lambda ie not mixture modulation/fixed boost)